CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.
According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).
This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.
1. Nothingness can not pack together
2. a Vacuum has no density
3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
4. How do you expand what isn't there.
5. Nothingness cannot produce heat
6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.
Now lets look at the outward pushing particles
1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.
2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.
3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4. No way to change the direction of even one particle
Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)
1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated
2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
Look at "Push themselves into stars"
1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together
2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars
3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.
4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.
We could go on and on.
This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell
this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
What evidence? There is a lot of evidence that is against the Big Bang. For example, detailed computer simulations that are scaled around the Big Bang time frame suggest that large scale voids are too large to be created after the Big Bang. They must have been before.
The evidence for it far outweighs the evidence against it. Is the theory perfect? No, but its almost certain that the universe began with an event very similar to a big bang type phenomena and it will become more clear exactly how within the next decades of research
That is silly though. If there is evidence against something that is so large then why say because we have more points for it it should stand?
Since then physicists have searched diligently with dozens of experiments for any evidence of the existence of these dark matter particle here on Earth. Oddly enough every one of the experiments has had negative results. In fields of research other than cosmology this would have long ago led to the conclusion that CDM does not exist. But Big Bang cosmology does not taken "NO" for an answer. So the failure to find the CDM after so many experiments does not in any way shake the faith of Big Bangers in such CDM.
The experiments to find dark matter have failed. Dark matter is a theory (an imaginative theory that obviously sounds like it came from a children's book) that is needed to support the Big Bang. If there are so many failed attempts at finding its exist, why persist? This sounds like someone trying to use there imagination to find a spec of truth that isn't there.
That is silly though. If there is evidence against something that is so large then why say because we have more points for it it should stand?
That is the way scientific theories are. They are models of reality that change with the evidence until they are repeatedly internally consistent. People who behave as though the theory is infallible are indeed misguided, but the observations made that form parts of the Big Bang theory don't disappear because of some as-of-yet uncovered holes. We must continue to be intellectually honest about what we know and continue to strive to reach that model of reality that hits the spot and becomes a scientific law.
If there are so many failed attempts at finding its exist, why persist? This sounds like someone trying to use there imagination to find a spec of truth that isn't there.
Imagine an atheist using that argument towards god? Just because you fail doesn't mean you should cease trying. That is why all endeavors of intellect are valid and vital to progress, whether they yield results in the long run or not.
That is the way scientific theories are. They are models of reality that change with the evidence until they are repeatedly internally consistent.
That us problematic, because that means the more data we get, the more it is analyzed until we can fit it into our theory.
People who behave as though the theory is infallible are indeed misguided, but the observations made that form parts of the Big Bang theory don't disappear because of some as-of-yet uncovered holes.
You sounded just like a confessed Christian there.
We must continue to be intellectually honest about what we know and continue to strive to reach that model of reality that hits the spot and becomes a scientific law.
In my opinion being intellectually honest is not sending out any theory until we have a complete understanding of its implications, especially when the cornerstone hasn't been proven, the corner stone being the dark matter, which is the theories drive.
Imagine an atheist using that argument towards god?
Atheists do that all the time.
Just because you fail doesn't mean you should cease trying
How much time must I fail before I find out this is untrue. Science claims to be more impartial than religion, it looks as if the field is not impartially searching but trying the "tinted glass view" like religion. If God never fulfilled my prayer it is not his will, if he does glory be to him. If I can't find dark matter after multiple experiments, it is there, all I have to do is keep looking. It is all faith.
, because that means the more data we get, the more it is analyzed until we can fit it into our theory
Well, yea. Observations must be made and evaluated as to their causal properties and such. Data that is found relevant to the question is added to the theory slightly changing the model.
You sounded just like a confessed Christian there.
I don't see how. We have all these observations, and the big bang model is the current model in which all these observations appear to consistently point towards a conclusion. This model will change as new observations are made or old ones are found to be missing important information. It is not yet infallible, just the best current model for explaining the current state of the universe. It is not an article of faith however(unless you use such a weak definition of faith that is basically becomes trust), because we are necessary dealing with issues of made observations and evidence.
In my opinion being intellectually honest is not sending out any theory until we have a complete understanding of its implications, especially when the cornerstone hasn't been proven, the corner stone being the dark matter, which is the theories drive.
Hence the word theory, in other words "work in progress". The model itself still makes predictable implications that we see in reality, so we wouldn't be justified in discarding it as a whole.
Atheists do that all the time.
The point was that it is an unconvincing argument, even to you.
How much time must I fail before I find out this is untrue
There is a separation between failing to find something and it being untrue. Which is way experiments must be made, fail, changed, and tried again.
Science claims to be more impartial than religion, it looks as if the field is not impartially searching but trying the "tinted glass view" like religion.
The difference is, when another model comes around that not only falls into line with observable phenomena but does so more effectively and consistently than the big bang model, it will be recognized as such. Not really a tinted glass view at all.
If I can't find dark matter after multiple experiments, it is there, all I have to do is keep looking.
You misconstrue the scientist who explores dark matter's position. HIs assertion is not or should not be that it is as a matter of fact there, but that it should be there as indicated by the present model and conducts experiments until either he succeeds or another model better answers the question.
It is all faith.
There you go again. You mentioned prayer and likened it to failed experiments, except prayer is noticeably absent in its dealing with evidence as opposed to scientific inquiry and experimentation. It is not faith because science necessarily deals with evidence.
Sir take that back. As a blind Big bang fan, I refuse to accept your ignorance on the topic. There is so much evidence and empirical data that proves the big bang is still funny.
The big bang theory isn't perfect but it seems like the most probable option at the moment with the data that we have. There may be other explanations in the future but until then believing in the big bang makes a lot more sense than believing in God.
Seriously? Well, considering that science has never tested the parameters of God or anything about him it is not safe to say it makes a lot more sense than believing in God.
Okay, I would just like to point out that science attempts to test theories they were never present for. To test God, replicate or copy the behaviour of the major religious martyrs and saints and you will have your answer. If God responded to them then he shall to you.
Well there has been many experiments trying to prove that pray works. It seems we can't prove that.
Christianity has had 2 thousand years to prove itself to be true. It has yet to present one shred of evidence. Despite the number of Christians in the country there is no research papers to prove the existence of God. However, if there ever is then I leave myself open to be persuaded. Until that point, I'll stick to the evidence we have for the big bang.
You see, not every religion believes the final standpoint is at prayer. Some believe in fasting and supplication, I know of no experiment that attempted to replicate Paul or Peter's life in terms of faith.
Christianity has had 2 thousand years to prove itself to be true. It has yet to present one shred of evidence.
It has proven itself in history but no one finds it to be true so whatever. I can never understand how Jesus is believed to be true by many historians but yet his miracles are a lie. That makes no sense.
Until that point, I'll stick to the evidence we have for the big bang.
Stop listening to pop culture and wayward scientists. The big bang theory is a failed attempt at figuring out the beginning of the universe. Again, dark matter is something needed to substantiate the theory, dark matter has been literally unproven. Many negative tests and results but scientists still persist. Doesn't this sound like biased researching and hypothesis? I guess absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though.
There is no conclusive evidence of the Big Bang theory either, just data that allows one to make an assumption. There is no conclusive evidence for dark matter but we are gonna keep looking until we "find" it.
Science has never tested the parameters of God because it is a spiritual belief backed-up by only a single book (or more depending on your beliefs). There is no science involved with the Bible, only pseudoscience at best.
Considering we've got this far and we now know that the universe is quite a bit older than 6000 years, I think your argument on how it's a safer bet to belief in God is flawed, as we have been able to point out a large amount of flaws hidden within the various spiritual books.
Science has never tested the parameters of God because it is a spiritual belief backed-up by only a single book (or more depending on your beliefs).
Science makes claims of string theory and parallel universe; that is just as spiritual as any book. Then what makes things worse, is that a couple physics equations (which is just a giant paragraph on ones opinion written in another language) allows everyone to believe. A little hypocritical huh?
Considering we've got this far and we now know that the universe is quite a bit older than 6000 years
Stop right there, give me a form of accurate dating test that can get behind 10000 years and I will believe you.
I think your argument on how it's a safer bet to belief in God is flawed
I never said it was safer, I am just equating the Big Bang and any religious belief.
as we have been able to point out a large amount of flaws hidden within the various spiritual books.
Everytime you find a flaw, an apologist who actually has legitimate credentials gives an explanation. It is easier to stick to your guns though, even if qualified people prove you wrong.
Science makes claims of string theory and parallel universe; that is just as spiritual as any book.
Those are just two different theories, science itself has achieved so much more than religion could ever do. If the world were wiped out right now, and every human died off as well as every shred of humanity, when civilization rebuilds, science will be rediscovered, while Christianity will not. This is because we can prove science, while religion is just a belief with no factual evidence whatsoever. There is no shred of evidence whatsoever to prove Christianity; the shroud or Turin and many others like it are proven falsities.
A little hypocritical huh?
I'm sorry, but I honestly think if you're really trying to say I'm hypocritical then you must have some sort of disability. You believe in a man in the sky, with no proof to back him up, who killed around 25 million humans according to his book, in which several falsities exist such as the bat, which we know is not a bird. It's all a lie, it's no more intelligent than Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.
Stop right there, give me a form of accurate dating test that can get behind 10000 years and I will believe you.
Key word being accurate I'm guessing. I could name many, although you'll just shoot them down for being "inaccurate". Fossils, including those of homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis, the dinosaurs, various forms of geography such as Canada's Appalachian mountains, which have slowly eroded away over the millions of years, the fact that corals have been growing at the coral reef for 25 million years and that their structures have existed for at least 600,000 years. Simple facts like this. Want me to go further? Fission track dating, carbon dating, amber from sap, layers of ice, craters, and so forth. I could go on all day.
I never said it was safer, I am just equating the Big Bang and any religious belief.
It's a theory, yes, but so is gravity. Is gravity also a huge lie? We might as well compare gravity to a religious belief, because it's also a theory.
Everytime you find a flaw, an apologist who actually has legitimate credentials gives an explanation.
Explain the Bible's self-contradiction. Such as Genesis 32:30, which states, “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…”. This is just one of many featured within the book.
Those are just two different theories, science itself has achieved so much more than religion could ever do.
It does not matter, the theories themself have no backbone in facts.
If the world were wiped out right now, and every human died off as well as every shred of humanity, when civilization rebuilds, science will be rediscovered, while Christianity will not.
Agreeable, religion would not be founded but in reference to Science, this is grossly dependent on what aspect of Science we speak of. Anything theoretical, no it would not be founded. Anything factual and easily observable (pythagora's theorem, simple math) would be founded but the Big Bang Theory, parallel universes, things like those would have never even been thought of.
I'm sorry, but I honestly think if you're really trying to say I'm hypocritical then you must have some sort of disability.
The clincher. You are not the hypocrite, the fact that these theories are allowed to surface in Science and are respectable without evidence is where the hypocrisy lies.
You believe in a man in the sky, with no proof to back him up, who killed around 25 million humans according to his book, in which several falsities exist such as the bat, which we know is not a bird.
You believe in a man in the sky
God odes not live in the sky.
with no proof to back him up
Depends on what you call proof.
ho killed around 25 million humans according to his book
As divine judge, he is entitled to correct human error, even if it were by death.
The classification of animals were different then than they were now. It was based on functionality, not modern day scientific principles. So by your opinion, the excerpt is wrong but by the opinion of the Jews of that time, you are wrong. Classification is an opinion. In any case, the word for bird never even existed in the Jewish language, bird is just a rendered translation from "owph" which means owner of wing.
Key word being accurate I'm guessing. I could name many, although you'll just shoot them down for being "inaccurate".
Could have been worded better. Accurate in dating after 10000 years.
Fossils, including those of homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis, the dinosaurs, various forms of geography such as Canada's Appalachian mountains, which have slowly eroded away over the millions of years
How are you aware that these things eroded slowly (which is somewhat a constant) over the years? Through modern day observations of erosion? Well, considering that weather and climate change quickly and readily, I am not inclined to believe that the earth erodes at a constant.
the fact that corals have been growing at the coral reef for 25 million years and that their structures have existed for at least 600,000 years.
If you called it a fact, without an explanation then I guess it is a fact. That is why I God is real, because I said so.
Fission track dating, carbon dating, amber from sap, layers of ice, craters, and so forth. I could go on all day.
You could list these things all day as facts, Jesus healed the blind, the sick and raised the dead. I don't need to give the evidence, I am just gonna list it.
It's a theory, yes, but so is gravity. Is gravity also a huge lie? We might as well compare gravity to a religious belief, because it's also a theory.
Gravity, the occurence or why it happens? Of course what we call gravity (what anchors things to earth) is real because it occurs, but the theory behind it is just as fallacious as religion.
Explain the Bible's self-contradiction. Such as Genesis 32:30, which states, “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…”. This is just one of many featured within the book.
The first an exaggeration, the second the truth. No man has literally seen God, for he is a Spirit being (John 4:24) but God can take physical form and speak to man. Hence, Israel saw God manifesting physically, but he never really saw God's true form.
I do. Care to hear about it and the explain it? Better yet, it would be nice if you were to tell me how much you know about the real data behind the Big Bang, cause there are nut many people who have seen the mathematical equations and other things. You just read and believe. I can't wait until I am old enough to see the principle in pure data and to just acquire more data, I am tired of hearing people searching for data then twisting it to warrant there beliefs.
